linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: phy: Use is_phy_driver() and is_phy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <820aeca6-1605-4413-2d97-0554443b3297@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:02:01 +0800
From: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew@...n.ch, olteanv@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
 przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, kabel@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: phy: Use is_phy_driver() and
 is_phy_device()


On 2024/1/3 22:00, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:53:32AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>> There is only one flag that can be set in struct mdio_driver_common and
>> mdio_device. We can compare the probe of the driver or the type of the
>> device to implement it. Hence, these flags in struct mdio_driver_common
>> and mdio_device can be removed.
>>
>> Introduce is_phy_driver() and is_phy_device(). Use them test the driver
>> or device.
> It is not a good idea to post a new series while discussion of the first
> is still on-going, even if it has been 24 hours since you last posted a
> patch. If discussion is still going on, then we don't need the
> distraction of yet another series to duplicate the comments to.
>
> I remain completely unconvinced of the merit of these changes. IMHO,
> it is pure churn for churn's sake - there is no _real_ benefit. It
> doesn't fix a bug. It doesn't make the code easier to read. It only
> satisfies some ideological idea that all drivers should look the same.
>
> Unless a very good justification can be found, I am not in favour of
> changing these drivers.
>
> There _may_ be good merit in is_phy_driver() and is_phy_device(), and
> as Andrew says, that should be done _first_.
>
Ok, I got it, thanks!